The Board of Scientific Counselors reviews EPA’s in-house research, including investigations into the sources and effects of water pollution. Here, agency scientist Jana Compton adds a small amount of nitrate and a red dye, which is used for tracking, to a stream as part of a study of nitrogen removal within the waterway.

Credit: EPA

The Board of Scientific Counselors reviews EPA’s in-house research, including investigations into the sources and effects of water pollution. Here, agency scientist Jana Compton adds a small amount of nitrate and a red dye, which is used for tracking, to a stream as part of a study of nitrogen removal within the waterway.

Credit: EPA

A membership shake-up in an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory council could be a sign of more changes to come at the regulatory agency, policy experts are saying.

In an unusual action, EPA did not grant nine of the 18 members on its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) a second three-year term. An additional four were already scheduled to rotate off the board this year due to term limits, BOSC chairwoman and environmental chemist Deborah L. Swackhamer tells C&EN. Composed of scientists from outside the agency, the board reviews technical and management issues related to EPA’s in-house research.

The unexpected dismissals and statements from EPA officials leave Swackhamer and others concerned that the agency will open itself to potential conflicts of interest by filling the vacant slots with members from regulated industries.

EPA spokesman J.P. Freire says the agency has received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board, and the agency intends to “carry out a competitive nomination process.”

Gretchen Goldman, research director of the Center for Science & Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is watching to see what the move portends for other scientific review groups at the agency. These include the Science Advisory Board, whose work is more closely tied to policy outcomes than BOSC’s, she says.

The move is another way that the Trump Administration is trying to take science out of the regulatory process, Goldman asserts. “It builds on other actions that we’re seeing this administration take with respect to science and science advisors.”

With their diminished numbers, BOSC’s remaining five members may find their capacity to review the agency’s scientific research program limited, several board members tell C&EN.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, last week asked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for more information about the dismissals. Carper says he is concerned that through this and other actions, EPA is engaging in “a broad approach of denying the science that forms the basis of sound environmental regulation.”

It is sad that c&en has become so political. Have you become a political editorial magazine. It was nice back in the day when you just focused on the factual news about the industry. Not comments from politicians. We get enough politics for other areas, we don't need it from industry publications. I almost can't even read the site anymore.

Leave A Comment

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment

John Tranquilli (May 15, 2017 1:51 PM)

"The move is another way that the Trump Administration is trying to take science out of the regulatory process" None of these statements are facts. It just an opinion. Until there are regulations that can be tested and proven wrong, these statements are just opinion.

Leave A Comment

"The move is another way that the Trump Administration is trying to take science out of the regulatory process, Goldman asserts."

The article as it is written clearly does not express any opinions of c&en. They are reporting the opinion of Gretchen Goldman, research director of the Center for Science & Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

When you report on 'factual news about the industry', it's quite common and important to gather opinions from those close to the situation. That's just good reporting. And since the Trump Administration frequently does things without explaining themselves, we only have the opinions of their opponents.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment

John T. O'Connor (May 10, 2017 3:51 PM)

These dismissals are evidence of a frontal assault on the scientific, engineering and academic communities, based on political bias toward scientists. All ACS members should be made aware of such efforts to distort the direction of scientific funding.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment

John Smith (May 10, 2017 5:06 PM)

First they came for the Climatologists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Climatologist.Then they came for the Science Advisers, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Science Adviser.Then they came for the EPA, and I did not speak out—Because I was not the EPA.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment

William Rubin (May 18, 2017 11:55 AM)

First they came for the creation scientists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a creation scientist.Then they came for the climate change deniers, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a climate change denier.Then they came for the remaining scientists who were not left-leaning, and I did not speak out—Because I was a left-leaning scientist.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment

Andrew Rasmussen (May 15, 2017 2:14 PM)

I see the article as being critical to "filling the vacant slots with members from regulated industries", and I disagree. The EPA has a very large effect on industry in this nation, and having no voice for industry on the advisory board is poor idea.

In my opinion, just because you work in an industry doesn't mean you don't want to do what's right, it means you have a different view point. The same is true that just because you are a "scientist" doesn't mean you are are always going to push for the right thing.

I see this as a normal shake up, probably a little extreme as three quarters of the board are being changed, but I don't think this portends dark intentions of the Trump administration. I think it portends that Donald Trump is planning on setting things up in his way, rather than President Obama's way.